We had township supervisor, county, and a few state judicial elections this year. Typical turnout is 1 in 10.
Is was on of those years when I just shake my head. We had a CA carpetbagger running for township supervisor as a steppingstone to a higher office - or so it seems.
I do have to laugh a bit at Fox News. Most of the pundits had looked at the gubernatorial election in NJ as some kind of referendum on O; ignoring that all politics are local. It looked like Corzine was going to have a tough time even if the GOP ran a highly skilled llama. I said that a year in as a talked to friends, family and co-workers that live(d) in the garden state. NJ residents are fed up with the BS in that sate - proven by the relatively large turn out. O'reilly looked a bit deflated when exit polling showed that more than 60% of voters stated that O had no bearing on their decision. I'm not saying it wasn't a factor. Apparently, national heath care, etc. were not major issues in a state with the level of corruption ( major fed. sweep a few months ago) and tax/cost of living issues beyond Corzine's ideological alignment - go figure. Corzine's childish ad poking fun at Christie's weight probably cost him a point or two. If it was all about Obama and national politics then Dagget ( the third party candidate) would have siphoned off a few more votes than he did.
I don't think that a major ideological shift to the left occurred in 2008 and so I can't believe that major 'correction' to the right is happening now. 2008 was more about the people running, GWB, and the economy tanking than anything else. As a result, GOP turn out wasn't as good as it could have been and 'independent' trended towards different rather than reason. Additionally, McCain ran a mediocre and inconsistent campaign while Obama ran a very good, disciplined, and media aided one. Presidential elections are as much about they guy before and a good campaign as they are about policy.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
A thought on the Auto makers:
The bail out of GM is more like a government buy out. The phrase that came, most recently, to mind is: "Who is John Galt?"
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
USSR part II?
I am not an expert in Russian politics....
When President Bush first met, then President, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin early in his first year in office he stated:
Two articles I've read in the last week spawned this quick reminder of who runs Russia today. The first was this one discussing the heavy handed break up of opposition protests. Many people are extremely unhappy with the current political situation in Russia and this has been exasperated by the lack of foreign investment and the current global financial mess. The investment issue is a major one and worthy of a book or two.
The second article is much more frightening. I thank God they we have the Bill of Rights. Voicing a descending view is treason... that very thought frightens me until I remember the old adage: "the 2nd Amendment protects all of the others." Read the article. This is a basis for a totalitarian state. I pray something occurs to heel Russia's current course or I fear a return of the USSR, though resembling Germany circa 1938 to a degree.
edit: This is what may happen in an extreme, but it is in the back of my head when ever I read someing like this.
When President Bush first met, then President, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin early in his first year in office he stated:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."Oddly enough I agree with Hillery Clinton - he is former KGB and probably does not have a soul. The minute he took office he started to consolidate political power. I could argue that purging the Kremlin of nearly anyone related to Boris Yeltsin was important house cleaning or that condensing the number of governors and political territories was need to better manage the country - many of the events of the past years point to less benevolent reasons. Let me be clear: this is a man who spent much of his life working his way through the KGB - starting in the Fifth Directorate (irc) which is charged with quelling descent of the government. I do believe that he has the best interests of his country at heart; it just so happens that it is always in the country's best interest to have him near the top of power. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's current president, has served under Putin since the fall of Communism in the early nineties and it is believed by many that hey his mealy Putin's proxy in office. The political party they share (and Putin is the current leader of) is generally considered a nationalist/center-right (the European definition of right). One of its main planks is to limit "radicalism". Additionally it has been reported (I don't recall where I saw it) that a push is being made to lessen the power of the rich oligarchs that run most of the countries manufacturing, transport, and natural resource concerns - possibly leading to the nationalization these industries. Now the PM and the President are pushing for a constitutional change to allow the president to serve a 6 year term instead of the current four. As a package it looks less than fair for a real Russian Democracy - I hope I'm wrong.
Two articles I've read in the last week spawned this quick reminder of who runs Russia today. The first was this one discussing the heavy handed break up of opposition protests. Many people are extremely unhappy with the current political situation in Russia and this has been exasperated by the lack of foreign investment and the current global financial mess. The investment issue is a major one and worthy of a book or two.
The second article is much more frightening. I thank God they we have the Bill of Rights. Voicing a descending view is treason... that very thought frightens me until I remember the old adage: "the 2nd Amendment protects all of the others." Read the article. This is a basis for a totalitarian state. I pray something occurs to heel Russia's current course or I fear a return of the USSR, though resembling Germany circa 1938 to a degree.
edit: This is what may happen in an extreme, but it is in the back of my head when ever I read someing like this.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
More minor points...
They are making a Ghostbusters game. Whether it very good or very bad doesn't matter: it'll be funny and I'll buy it.
This is the best summary of Islamo-fascist terrorism I have ever seen:
Plexico Burris is a colossal moron. Apparently the thug culture, that apparently urban people perpetuate, ignores basic safety and throws common sense out the window.
Problem one: He carried a gun in NYC illegally. Do I think NY's laws are asinine? Hell yeah, but I obey them just the same. He shouldn't have had it with him in the first place. Hell, clubs/bars and guns don't mix for a myriad of reasons. Guns and alcohol don't mix in any situation or quantity.
Problem two: He stuffed a loaded Glock in the waist band of his sweat pants. I have never found a pair of sweatpants that would support a couple of pounds of stainless steel, plastic, and ammo. In fact, I purchased a heavy duty gun belt to wear when I carry to support the weight of my sidearm - no pair of pants would do it by it self. In addition to this being unsafe and insecure; I have a major problem with pointing a loaded gun at my junk and at my femoral artery when sitting. In the worst case scenario the gun goes off taking my boys off and severing the major artery in my leg. The shame of becoming androgynous will be short lived since I'll probably bleed out in less than minute.
Problem three: He was sans holster. Nearly all holsters cover the trigger guard preventing accidental contact with the trigger and thus helping to prevent a negligent discharge. Most holsters also have belt clip that will prevent the gun from sliding down your pants leg.
Problem four: It should be a rule - don't try and grab a falling gun!
Who wears sweatpants in public anyway? Many people do when it makes sense to do so (jogging for example) - but to a club? Isn't that a sign you've given up on life and plan on spending your days in a recliner, chugging cheap booze, channel surfing and hoping not to wind up like half the people on COPS. I think this was a basis for an episode of Seinfeld.
And again whe turn to Americas best source for news an commentary to help put this in the proper perspective:
This is the best summary of Islamo-fascist terrorism I have ever seen:
Plexico Burris is a colossal moron. Apparently the thug culture, that apparently urban people perpetuate, ignores basic safety and throws common sense out the window.
Problem one: He carried a gun in NYC illegally. Do I think NY's laws are asinine? Hell yeah, but I obey them just the same. He shouldn't have had it with him in the first place. Hell, clubs/bars and guns don't mix for a myriad of reasons. Guns and alcohol don't mix in any situation or quantity.
Problem two: He stuffed a loaded Glock in the waist band of his sweat pants. I have never found a pair of sweatpants that would support a couple of pounds of stainless steel, plastic, and ammo. In fact, I purchased a heavy duty gun belt to wear when I carry to support the weight of my sidearm - no pair of pants would do it by it self. In addition to this being unsafe and insecure; I have a major problem with pointing a loaded gun at my junk and at my femoral artery when sitting. In the worst case scenario the gun goes off taking my boys off and severing the major artery in my leg. The shame of becoming androgynous will be short lived since I'll probably bleed out in less than minute.
Problem three: He was sans holster. Nearly all holsters cover the trigger guard preventing accidental contact with the trigger and thus helping to prevent a negligent discharge. Most holsters also have belt clip that will prevent the gun from sliding down your pants leg.
Problem four: It should be a rule - don't try and grab a falling gun!
Who wears sweatpants in public anyway? Many people do when it makes sense to do so (jogging for example) - but to a club? Isn't that a sign you've given up on life and plan on spending your days in a recliner, chugging cheap booze, channel surfing and hoping not to wind up like half the people on COPS. I think this was a basis for an episode of Seinfeld.
And again whe turn to Americas best source for news an commentary to help put this in the proper perspective:
Sunday, November 30, 2008
A Journalist gets it!
I found the following quote, in this article, from the photographer who managed to get a shot of on of the Mumbai terrorists:
Policemen who will not stop an armed gunman from slaughtering unarmed citizens... It makes my stomach turn.
"I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Policemen who will not stop an armed gunman from slaughtering unarmed citizens... It makes my stomach turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)